May 29, 2007 9:45 PM
Standards for letters vs. web postings
A reader raised a thoughtful question about why we have different standards for letters to the editor and web comments, some of which are printed in the paper.
"Subject: Standards for printing reader comments
"I am writing about what I perceive as a double standard in your policy of publishing reader comments.
"As stated daily in every newspaper, letters eligible for print must include
the writer's full name, address and daytime phone number. However, other
parts of the newspaper now print comments attributed to anonymous internet
usernames - no real names or locations. Sometimes these web excerpts even
appear on the same page as traditional letters.
"Why are there two different set of rules for printing public comments? Why
are message board posters given so much more privacy, compared to those who write directly to the editorial staff?
"I presume - for traditional letters - the address and phone number are used
to verify the identity of the writer prior to publication. There are also
numerous databases available to confirm the combination of an individual's name, address and phone number, to verify the existence of the writer.
"To register on most message boards (including the one run by the Rocky
Mountain News), one only needs to provide a working e-mail address. All
other details can be fabricated as needed. How exactly do your forum
administrators verify the name and address information associated with each username?
"I am withholding my street address and phone number from this letter to
prevent its publication. Although a personal response via e-mail would be
welcome, I prefer to read in a future edition the official response of the Rocky Mountain News on the subject of writer and poster identification."
The reader raises an important topic, one we've discussed a lot internally.
First, there's no need to withhold the the address or phone number in a letter to prevent its publication. I receive many such requests. We honor them.
But to the question, why a different standard. The answer is because the Web has opened a whole new avenue for readers to participate in the news in real time and we want to encourage that participation. Comments are a very popular feature.By publishing excerpts from the Web conversation in the paper, we're hoping to encourage readers to become involved online and to capture the tone of discussion, to give people a feel for what people are saying.
What we've done is set different standards for the kinds of comments we'll print from the Web and what we'll print on the letters page. We give letter writers far more leeway because they're putting their name to their work. We see the publishing of Web comments in the paper as a way to capture the conversation that's going on over a particular issue. So it's OK to publish an opinion on a public policy issue, but not to take from the Web comments that include personal accusations or controversial factual assertions. The rules for Web comments are much narrower than the rules for letters.
I hope this helps.
By the way, one of the strengths of the Web is that it's self-policing. I think that can apply to the paper, too. If people think we're publishing inappropriate comments from the Web, I hope they'll let me know.
June 4, 2007
6:49 PM
DR. SEAN REIF D.C. writes:
Is it possible to be "black-balled" in today's yourhub.com citizen journalist experiment? Travis Henry and John Eisel have systematically discriminated against any and ALL articles that I have submitted for publication on the yourhub website. I have written 688 articles and 13 event postings averaging 1 per day since my start day of July 17, 2005. I have averaged 375 hits per article for the first 500 postings, showing a growing regular readership. Although when the experiment first went into production I was encouraged to submit and regularly chosen for print publication. I was even called a "columnist." But after a few intellectual "tiffs" with Mr. Henry, I no longer even been given the common courtesy of a Featured Story, a Recent Story, a Featured Profile or a column featured for print publication. Then I read in the Thursday, May 31, 2007, John Eisel practically BEGS for contributions. "Don't be intimidated about posting," he says. "What is the chance that it would get printed? Pretty good." My local, community public service articles are within my areas of expertise, Chiropractic, Rotary, City Planning, Rugby, Cooking, and Public Opinion. And so I ask, why would I be "blackballed"? Call it JEALOUSY. I find that my topics are cutting edge and informing the public about issues that are relevant, and of concern to the majority of readers within my North Metro regional community. Please look into this situation as I believe there is favoritism, discrimination, and corruption of power going on in the little world of yourhub.com.
August 1, 2007
6:39 PM
Karin Malchow writes:
As a regular YourHub.com poster, I have found it a positive, supportive environment. Sometimes I am published and sometimes not, an editorial decision I don't take personally. While Dr. Reif's first 500 postings may have received many hits, his last 65 averaged 22 hits an article, which may support Mr. Temple's point that the internet is self-policing.
October 24, 2007
6:16 AM
Colin J. Guthrie, Ph.D. writes:
I see the last posting is dated in August. So, I guess the topic really is of no particular consequence to anybody today. But, I thought I would put up a few words about my own experience, just for fun.
The open forum for Reader Comments on Letters to the Editor has been a very interesting experience. I am absolutely against censorship, in any form - though I do think an Editor should be able to deal with such things as multiple postings of the same thing, by eliminating the surplus, while allowing the poster to have the basic "say".
There are those on the website, however, who can't handle the idea of being critiqued; and who constantly whine about how they are not receiving the "deference and courtesy" that is their "due". For the most part, however, allowing for the individuals who do enjoy a "bar-room brawl" atmosphere, the postings are both informative and acceptable, even good fun. And one soon learns that an overly "thin skin" is somewhat juvenile when dealing with current topics, such as the Administration, immigration, and other volatile matters today.
On the other hand, there IS a very definite censorship taking place. Without warning, or explanation, I learned, yesterday, that: "You are not allowed to post comments."; and the ban extends to someone who happens to share a "router" with me on the Internet provider we have.
No one at the Rocky Mountain News has even so much as the basic courtesy to explain why this sudden, and abrupt, closing off of the right to be a part of the forum, much less the courtesy to reply to inquiry concerning the action. While the writer of August 1, 2007 may feel that Mr. Temple's point, ". . . that the internet is self-policing", one would think that such "policing" would at least include SOME area of information as to what "rule, or Law" had caused one to be "policed".
But, Mr. Temple refuses to be bothered about something such as that, I guess.
Freedom of the Press? Of course!
Freedom of Speech for others?
Or at least an explanation as to why this basic is not there?
September 3, 2008
12:18 PM
DR. SEAN REIF D.C. writes:
YOUR HUB GOALS
AS UNDERSTOOD
A major new initiative, yourhub.com is in its 4th year.
It is all about us, the reader / writer. Yourhub.com helps us connect with our neighbors. Reporters and editors are not the only ones who get to decide what is news.
Anyone can be a published reporter, columnist, photographer, artist. It’s a new approach, we the readers are at the ‘center’ of the equation. A town square where people can share their lives and make connections. If we think something is news, we are able to make it news at yourhub.com.
Written by residents, it should be interactive, fun, friendly, interesting, useful, and up-to-date. The Rocky Mountain News has stated its commitment to local news to make us the reader / writer, a unique part of the Front Range.
The print sections is where readers define the news based on what we post online. The Rocky Mountain News should know what we consider important. We do the talking and the ‘Rocky’ should publish it. It is ‘our’ names and faces that ‘are’ the news.
Why do staff writers write yourhub articles when they could make the news in the main paper taking valuable editorial space from the citizen journalist? For granted, community news SHOULD make the Rocky, but not at our expense.
January 9, 2010
8:06 AM
Wynell Measheaw writes:
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.